No longer allowed to roam the stage or freely float across territories of personal angst, Donald Trump appeared less qualified to assume the mantle of the presidency than Democrat Hillary Clinton last night. At one point during the foreign policy portion of the debate, he even admitted, "you have more experience than me. It is just bad experience." Trump went on to argue against Clinton's effectiveness as a world leader.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

But let's be honest, this campaign hasn't really been about qualifications. Or experience. For months, the core argument has been about inherent fitness. Chris Wallace dedicated an entire section of the debate to asking both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton if they were fit to be president given their most prominent scandals.

I disagree with Donald Trump on every substantive public policy matter. I find his comments about women, Mexican immigrants, and Muslims repugnant. I dislike his personal style and I don't want to see him represent the United States on the world stage or spend the next four years listening to him speak from Oval Office. There are many voters who feel precisely the same way about Hillary Clinton. They disagree on substance, find her deeply dishonest, cringe when thinking of her representing our nation, and have considered property in Canada rather than listen to four years of her State of the Union addresses. They fear a Supreme Court with her appointees as much as many progressives shudder at the idea of Trump's court. The fact that many voters have a viscerally negative reaction to one candidate doesn't makes either candidate unfit to be president. It is hardly even remarkable in the history of presidential elections.

I am weary of this language of "fitness" or "unfitness," deployed most vehemently by Trump's opponents, who have repeatedly slipped from policy discussions and instead argue about personal attributes. It is dangerous and disingenuous.

It is dangerous because it leads to simplistic forgetfulness about our collective history. No racist is fit to be president! Really? Nearly every president in America's early history openly held egregious beliefs about black people and many owned slaves.Even in the modern era, both political parties have used code words, Southern strategies, and purposeful racial strategies to win elections. Men guilty of dishonesty, sexism, racism, and horrifying acts of bad character have occupied the Oval Office. Some have even been very good presidents.

There is nothing wrong with seeking an inspiring candidate or holding up our articulated ideals as aspirations to which we should collectively strive. It is troubling to engage in purposive amnesia, wiping away collective sins by allowing one individual candidate to bear them all as character flaws.

Last night Hillary Clinton said, "America is great because America is good." Not really. America is great because America pursues good. Many of us would argue we have not yet achieved it.

Yes I hate it when Trump sneers "nasty woman," at Hillary as she attempts to make her point. But can we pause to acknowledge Trump's opponents have argued he is stupid, selfish, corrupt, racist, predatory, and even subhuman. Whatever you think of his policies, he is still a human. His opponents don't deprecate him on stage while he is talking, but they do it, on a near daily basis. The effect of this on American political discourse is pernicious, reducing the race to the White House to grade school name-calling.